Case Study: Complying with a Second Request, Antitrust Investigation in 30 Days
A major telecommunications company proposes to acquire one of its rivals, prompting a government antitrust review. During the investigation, the government issued a second request for production, and the company’s outside counsel – accustomed to a paper-based review process – suddenly faced a 30-day time frame to sort through 270 gigabytes of data and prepare it for review. With stiff daily fines for missing the deadline, paper review was no longer a viable option.
Read the Case Study >Recent Technology & Telecommunications Case Studies and Other Resources
The general counsel of a leading enterprise software company was concerned about likely challenges to its intellectual property and the company's ability to respond to related discovery requests quickly and cost-effectively, and with minimal disruption of day-to-day business processes.
A global telecommunications provider, represented by Dickinson Wright, was in the midst of intellectual property litigation. Initially, electronic discovery in the case involved 10 custodians, but after the number of custodians unexpectedly tripled and a looming production delivery date, the company’s prospects for success were suddenly in doubt.
It is well-documented that e-discovery consumes increasing percentages of overall civil litigation costs. There is an existing and overlooked approach to reduce electronic discovery costs available now.
Emerging Trends
Patent litigation is one of the most interesting and active practice specialties on the U.S. legal landscape today. It typically involves review and production of large volumes of electronically stored information (ESI), which can significantly increase costs. It's essential that practitioners understand the unique legal and practical e-discovery issues in patent cases and how they impact the processes of ESI collection, review and production.
Case Law / Rules
Magistrate Judge Barbara Major recently sanctioned Qualcomm's outside counsel by sending them to the state disciplinary bar with a damning, detailed list of particulars. She also mandated that a root cause analysis be conducted by Qualcomm, optionally with a Broadcom representative, to develop a protocol or CREDO (comprehensive case review and enforcement of discovery obligations) so that similar discovery violations would not occur again. In this webcast, we explore: Due diligence prior to fili
The United States District Court for the Southern District of California's decision in Qualcomm v. Broadcom could require companies to reconsider their e-discovery policies and procedures.